EDITORIAL

Environmental Legislation: A Necessity in Preserving OurCommon Biosphere?

J. T. Trevors & M. H. Saier Jr.

Published online: 19 January 2007# Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007

Unfortunately, many people don’t make the correctchoices unless regulations have been legislated andenforced. Just imagine how chaotic and insecure ourworld would be if there were no laws. Why, society aswe know it would probably fall apart! We wouldreturn to a state comparable to those of the other wildanimals (some of which have social structures). Thisoutcome could be expected unless, of course, reasonand concern for the common good dominated ouregocentric, selfish interests.

It is equally unfortunate that even legislation andenforcement do not always bring about the desiredresults. This is obvious by the number of crimescommitted and the inappropriate punishments provid-ed by the justice system. Also problematic are crimesthat are committed that go unpunished because ofinadequacies in the legal system. For this reason wemight consider the enforcement of laws to be a lastresort approach. If people can be encouraged,rewarded or cajoled into making the right choices,

our world would function optimally with minimalpolice and military action.

Crimes against our common biosphere are com-mitted regularly. From a legal perspective, theseenvironmental insults may not be crimes. The actionsof people who commit them are considered accept-able by some since there are no laws against them.However, their actions have long-term damagingeffects on society and the biosphere. To make mattersworse, damaging actions may even be encouraged bygovernments, industries and individuals, usuallybecause of some short-term profit or personal benefit.Examples of actions that are or should be consideredcrimes include: (1) destruction caused by wars andother military conflicts, (2) unwarranted depletion ofnon-renewable resources, (3) excessive wastage andpollution, and (4) lifestyles based on consumptioninstead of conservation. In a democracy, one can evenconsider ignorance or an attitude of apathy to bedamaging, and therefore a moral transgression.

Based on these considerations, we argue that sincetoo many people do not make responsible choices,these choices may in some cases need to be legislatedinto laws that are enforceable. Examples of suitablelegislation could include: restrictions on water con-sumption, prohibition of vehicles that do not achievesatisfactory efficiency in fuel consumption andrestrictions on the use of recreational vehiclesgenerally used as adult toys. Of equal importance,the advertising industry must be encouraged to

Water Air Soil Pollut (2010) 205 (Suppl 1):S11–S13DOI 10.1007/s11270-006-9322-8

J. T. Trevors (*)Department of Environmental Biology,University of Guelph,Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1e-mail: jtrevors@uoguelph.ca

M. H. Saier Jr.Division of Biological Sciences, University of California,San Diego La Jolla, CA, USAe-mail: saier@biomail.ucsd.edu

promote responsible lifestyles, and the public must beeducated about the necessity to put long-term goalsabove short-term goals that impact society negatively.Only with an understanding of what is at stake willthe proposed legislation stand a chance of beingproperly received and cooperatively acted upon.

Above all, we need to promote actions that willallow a decrease in the human population. A decreaseby several billion will be required to restore sustain-ability. Since most of the population growth occurs inpoor, developing countries, this would involve pro-viding birth control services worldwide, at theexpense of the wealthy nations. Encouragement oflifestyles that do not involve procreation (throughadvertising, propaganda and a system of rewards andpunishments) would also help. We need to increaseinternational awareness of the precarious situation thathas resulted from our excessive human population.We must encourage participation in population reduc-tion programs and make sure citizens recognize thatprocreation is a moral issue. Finally, prohibitionsagainst habitual drug users and other people unsuit-able for parenthood from having children could beimplemented.

In order to parent, it could and maybe should berequired that a couple go through qualification testingjust as is required for adoption. A primary goal mustbe to ensure that all children brought into the worldwill not be hampered by deleterious conditions.Society and the parents must be able to provideloving, lastingly secure environments, or childbirthshould be strongly discouraged. Considering theseverity of the world’s situation, policies such as theone child policy in China might be considered,although numerous available international studiessuggest this may not be necessary.

Legislation may be able to ensure the preservationof our world. However, environmental legislation willbe difficult to implement at all levels. Too manypeople are accustomed to acting out of self-interestalone. But enforceable agreements must be in place assoon as possible in order to reverse the head-oncollision course that our expanding population iscausing. Since migration to a second planet is notpossible, international agreements restricting humanpopulation growth must be the number one priority. Ifmigration from third world countries to wealthiernations is only possible for some people, then the bestapproach is to allow the former countries to restrict

their populations so the people can benefit fromeconomic advances.

Care must be taken when creating and enforcinglaws. Legal procedures could evolve into violations ofhuman rights. However, a lack of restriction leads tostarvation, conflicts and suffering, all of which alsorepresent gross violations of basic human rights.Human populations need to be better educated sothey can make choices and undertake activities thatbenefit humanity, not just an individual’s life style. Ifconsumers do not purchase fuel-guzzling vehicles,manufacturers will not produce them. Legislativeincentives that promote intelligent, meaningful andcorrect long-term decisions must be encouraged.

We need to hinder the use of inefficient recreation-al vehicles in favor of bicycles, walking, jogging andsailing. If the latter activities are pursued, thepopulation as a whole will be happier and healthier.The consumer has the power, but not yet thewillpower, to ignore consumer-driven lifestyles pro-moted by the advertising industry. Just becausesomeone can afford to buy something, does not meanthat the object is needed or even desired. The wealthyhave much to learn before they can achieve long-termhappiness. Even they need to consider the futures oftheir progeny. Money will not protect anyone fromthe ills resulting from human overpopulation andglobal warming.

We suspect that some businesses will not willinglyconform to an altruistic plan. Why should they? Theirpurpose is to make immediate profits, and a programsuch as the one we propose will at best yield long-term profits. For these reasons, the directors whomanage the companies must be provided withsufficient incentives and directives so that we can allreside in, protect and prosper in our common, sharedbiosphere.

Does all of this sound like a lot of hot air andidealism? Perhaps, but the consequences will be direif proper action is not taken. And implementation maynot be as difficult as it seems. We need to be educatedand educate our friends and associates so that we allcan act logically. Only by so doing will we ensure thatfuture generations will be subjected to minimalsuffering. Legislation and international agreementsmay or may not prove to be necessary to protect andmaintain our biosphere, but the greedy side ofhumankind must somehow be suppressed. Morehumans, more consumption and more irresponsible

S12 Water Air Soil Pollut (2010) 205 (Suppl 1):S11–S13

economic growth do not promote a future of qualitylife. And a future of suffering and misery is no futureat all.

In his famous essay, “The Tragedy of the Com-mons,” the great human ecologist and educator,Garrett Hardin, wrote “Unlimited freedom of repro-duction suffocates all other goods of life! To couplethe concept of freedom to breed with the belief thateveryone born has an equal right to the commons is tolock the world into a tragic course of action.” He goeson to claim that “The only way we can preserve andnurture other more precious freedoms is by relin-quishing the freedom to breed.” He quotes Hegel whosaid, “Freedom is the recognition of necessity.” Andnecessity is the best teacher!

We are not certain that Hardin was entirely correctin his views and proposal. Perhaps we do not need tolegislate birth restriction. What we need to guarantee,at least initially, is the right of all women to choosetheir reproductive fulfillment. Hundreds of studiesconducted worldwide indicate that when womenmake the decisions and have free access to birthcontrol methods, fertility rates fall dramatically. Theserates decline to the replacement level or lower as hasoccurred in almost all developed nations. Empowered

women everywhere choose to restrict their familysizes regardless of economic level and education. Ittherefore seems to us that the first step in achieving asustainable world is to ensure that women have theright to restrict their family sizes in accordance withtheir preferences. If this doesn’t suffice in bringingour population down to sustainable levels, or if itdoesn’t happen rapidly enough to prevent the expan-sion of suffering, then other measures would bejustified.

Numerous cross-culture studies have demonstratedwhat the incorrect pathway is. Programs of “absti-nence only” simply don’t work. Misleading religiousdogma must be counteracted with logic, and religiousleaders must assume responsibility. The people mustdemand it! You must demand it! I must demand it!WE ALL must demand it! Back to reality. The realquestion is: can we count on human populations tounderstand the consequences of their actions and actaccordingly? Considering the darker side of humannature, the lust for power, the greed for wealth andpossession, and the irrationality of mystical beliefs,the answer to this question is uncertain. Only timewill tell. But we must do all we can, and the time isnow.

Water Air Soil Pollut (2010) 205 (Suppl 1):S11–S13 S13